Title
Ledesma vs. McLachlin
Case
G.R. No. 44837
Decision Date
Nov 23, 1938
Socorro Ledesma sought to recover P1,500 from Lorenzo Quitco's heirs, claiming his debt and her daughter's inheritance rights. The court ruled the claim prescribed, and heirs inherited from Eusebio Quitco were not liable for Lorenzo's debts.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 195466)

Parties

Petitioner/Appellants (who appealed): Conchita McLachlin and the other defendants named above.
Respondents/Appellees (who obtained judgment below): Socorro Ledesma and Ana Quitco Ledesma.

Key Dates

Execution of promissory note by Lorenzo M. Quitco: January 21, 1922.
Due date of last installment (P1,500): January 21, 1924.
Death of Lorenzo M. Quitco: March 9, 1930.
Death of Eusebio Quitco (grandfather): December 15, 1932.
Filing of claim before committee on claims and appraisal (intestate of Eusebio): August 26, 1933.
Filing of complaint giving rise to the case: June 26, 1934.
Decision under review (trial court): judgment that Ana was an acknowledged natural daughter (for legal purposes) but denied her share in Eusebio’s estate; ordered defendants to pay Socorro P1,500 with interest.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Applicable statutes and rules invoked in the decision: provisions of the Civil Code on representation (arts. 924–927), and provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure on prescription and on administration of estates (including sec. 642 and sec. 43, No. 1). Applicable constitution for legal context: the 1935 Philippine Constitution (decision predates the 1987 Constitution).

Focal Issues on Appeal

  1. Whether the action to recover the unpaid P1,500 note installment had prescribed.
  2. Whether property inherited by appellants by representation from their grandfather Eusebio must answer for debts contracted by their deceased father Lorenzo (who died insolvent).
  3. Whether the trial court erred in jointly and severally condemning the defendants to pay Socorro P1,500.

Relevant Trial Facts

From 1916–1921 Socorro lived maritally with Lorenzo M. Quitco and bore him a daughter, Ana. Lorenzo executed a deed acknowledging Ana as his natural daughter and executed a promissory note to Socorro dated January 21, 1922 for P2,000 with scheduled payments including a final P1,500 due two years later. Lorenzo later married Conchita and had four children. Lorenzo died in 1930; his father Eusebio died in 1932 leaving property subject to intestate proceedings (civil case No. 6153). Socorro presented the promissory note to the committee on claims and appraisal in the intestate proceedings of Eusebio in August 1933; commissioners referred the claim to the court and ultimately denied it for lack of jurisdiction. Socorro then filed the present complaint in June 1934.

Court’s Analysis — Prescription of the Claim

The Court found the promissory note’s last installment due January 21, 1924. The action to recover P1,500 was filed on June 26, 1934 — more than ten years after maturity. The filing of the claim before the committee on claims and appraisal in the intestate of Eusebio did not interrupt or suspend prescription because the note was an obligation of Lorenzo, not of Eusebio; therefore the proper administrative or judicial remedy to collect from Lorenzo’s estate should have been pursued in the intestate of Lorenzo pursuant to section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which permits a creditor to institute proceedings for appointment of an administrator to collect the credit). Because more than ten years elapsed, the action had prescribed under section 43, No. 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held the first assignment of error (appellants’ contention that recovery had prescribed) to be well-founded.

Court’s Analysis — Representation and Liability for Predecessor’s Debts

The Court recognized that under articles 924–927 of the Civil Code a child may represent a predeceased parent in the estate of the grandparent (representation). However, the Court emphasized that representation does not render the representative child liable for obligations contracted by the deceased parent. The governing principle is that heirs receive the inheritance with the benefit of inventory: they answer only with the properties they receive from the predecessor. Because Lorenzo died without leaving assets that passed to his children, the children who inherited from Eusebio by representation were not liable to pay Lorenzo’s debts out of the properties they received from Eusebio. Consequently, the second assignment of error (that inherited property should answer for Lorenzo’s obligations) was well-founded.

Court’s Disposition and Effect on Third Assignment

Given the conclusions on prescription and on the non-liability of heirs by representation for the deceased parent’s obligations, the Court found the third assignment of error (condemnation to pay jointly and severally P1,500) to be a mere sequel and likewise well-founded. The appealed judgm

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.